Thoughts on classical music in London, on the web and beyond. By Gavin Dixon.

Friday, 13 December 2013

Sokhiev, Mullova, Kalagina, Philharmonia. RFH 12 December 13

Mendelssohn:
Violin Concerto in E Minor

Mahler:
Symphony No. 4

Viktoria
Mullova (violin),

Anastasia
Kalagina (soprano),

Tugan
Sokhiev (cond.),

Philharmonia
Orchesta,

Royal
Festival Hall, London, 12.12.13

A
game of two halves this: a Mendelssohn Violin Concerto wholly lacking in
enthusiasm, commitment and...well, anything very much, followed by a Mahler
Four of genuine insight and originality.

I’ve
not heard Viktoria Mullova before, but her reputation precedes her, and it must
surely be based on performances better than this one. There was nothing technically
wrong with her performance, but for one of the great Romantic concertos it was
curiously lacking in emotion. To her credit, Mullova projects an identity
through her playing and ensures that what she does is always distinctive. Her
programme bio tells us she’s a part-time HIPster, which may explain the strict
economy she applies to her rubato. Her tone is always focussed, and projects
the line well, but it rarely sings. And she has a different timbre in each
register: a viola-like richness at the bottom, a more nasal sound in the
middle, and a thin, reedy whine at the top. Delicacy is her key virtue in the
Mendelssohn: nothing is ever laid on thick and melodic lines are suggested
rather than stated emphatically. But it doesn’t add up to a coherent
interpretation, and it almost always lacks warmth.

That’s
not to say Mullova was the only culprit here. Conductor Tugan Sokhiev
communicated poorly with her throughout, and straightjacketed the orchestra
into an inflexible and angular reading that neither they nor Mullova ever
sounded comfortable with. Occasionally, she would attempt to free up the tempo,
in the coda to the first movement for example, where she made every effort to
accel into the final cadence. But it was no good, she just got further and
further ahead of the metronomic beat, Sokhiev always refusing to yield. Predictably,
the orchestra lacked motivation here, and the textures in the ensemble were
muddy and indistinct throughout the concerto. For all his rigour, Sokhiev also
failed to make the work cohere, leading to many awkward transitions and tempo
shifts.

Fortunately,
the second half of the concert was a completely different story. Or rather,
everything that Sokhiev had done in the first half to the detriment of the
Mendelssohn – his austerity, brutally imposed tempo changes, and curious
orchestral balances – came together in the Mahler to produce a meaningful and
engaging interpretation. Mahler’s Fourth Symphony is something of a virtuoso
showpiece for the conductor, with all sorts of paradoxes to resolve on the
hoof(just look at the tempo change on
the first page of the score). Sokhiev appeared throughout the concert as a
conductor used to getting his way by heavy coercion, by dictatorship from the
podium. This score benefits from that approach, because if the composer knows
the music well and knows where he is going with it (Sokhiev clearly knows
both), the problematic ambiguities of tempo and form that the work throws up
can be overcome.

Sokhiev
is clearly very interested in the details of Mahler’s orchestration, the held
horn chords, for example, that often underpin woodwind ensembles, or the way
that a violin line will be given an earthy and rustic-sounding conclusion by
suddenly switching to the violas before the cadence. And the Philharmonia
responded well to his analytical approach, bringing out all those colourful
details, and without ever exaggerating them to the point of pedantry. The
woodwinds yet again showed themselves to be the crowning glory of this
orchestra, presenting all manner of intricacy and detail in both their
ensembles and their solos.

Soprano
Anastasia Kalagina is the ideal collaborator for Sokhiev’s Mahler. Her tone is
narrow but focussed, clear and with only a very slight vibrato, and she always
brings the lyrics to the fore. She gave the sort of performance that combined beautifully
with the detail Sokhiev was drawing from the woodwinds behind her, both she and
they presenting intimate but never pale colours, shaped through deeply
expressive phrasing.

This
still wasn’t an ideal performance though, and although they were not as
evident, some of Sokhiev’s flaws in the Mendelssohn carried over into the
Mahler. His tempos were often stiff (something Mahler himself considered fatal
to performances of his music) and the orchestra often seemed to be hectored
into compliance through emphatic cues and an unyielding baton technique. Also,
Sokhiev had the same communication problems with Kalagina that he had
previously had with Mullova, a reluctance to follow her phrasing and a
reluctance to give her the space she needed to perform as a soloist. But in
this work it is the conductor’s vision that matters, and Sokhiev clearly has
one; an understanding of the symphony’s curious proportions and of the story
that Mahler is trying to tell. With just a little more empathy for his
colleagues, Sokhiev could have given a truly great performance of the score
this evening, but even while jealously clutching the reins of power, he still
produced a very fine one.

No comments:

Post a Comment

.

Gavin Dixon is a writer, journalist, editor and blogger specialising in classical music. He writes reviews and articles for a number of publications and websites. Gavin has a PhD on the Symphonies of Alfred Schnittke and is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is also a member of the editorial team behind the ‘Alfred Schnittke Collected Works’ edition, which recently began publication in St Petersburg. More information on Gavin’s writing activities can be found at his website: www.gavindixon.info